|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa. quote:Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve. I have difficulty with the one unit idea since the mean were allowed to have more than one wife. My money is still on mating. They unite and a child is the one flesh that emerges.
quote:Why do you think they didn't want to wait for the preacher? Marriage is a formality. quote:That's the point. Marriage is a manmade formality. The rules change throughout the ages. quote:Levite marriages, dowry's, arranged marriages, mixed marriages, rights of the wife/husband upon the spouses death, etc. Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story. I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar).
quote:That's what I said: This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation. quote:And this is when the backpedaling starts. quote:But does the reality still exist? IOW, does the need for the law still exist? People still murder, so yes.People still steal, so yes. People still raise cattle, so ...? People still grow crops, so ...? Women still have periods, so ...? Do we follow all the laws or not? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 5993 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
I'd like to respond to each of your points but for now that'll have to wait as I need to finish posting for now....For now let me address your last questions - do the realities still exist? Is the Law still neccessary?
Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters both explain the fulfillment of the Law as being Love of God and Love of neighbors...furthermore, against such as these there can be no wrong...So all laws must be evaluated in this light.. Let's look at your examples: 1. People still murder, so yes. Was Cain guilty of murder even though the Ten Commandments (Thou shall not kill) were not yet in effect? Of course he was..Why? Because life was instituted by God; Taking a life is certainly not loving to one's neighbor nor is it loving to God... 2. People still steal, so yes. Stealing one's possessions can hardly be construed as love for neighbor... People still raise cattle, so ...?People still grow crops, so ...? Women still have periods, so ...? I'm not sure what your questions with these last three is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Those situations still exist, so are those laws still needed? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive. First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose.. haha, i think i'm gonna like you. however.
Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain.. as you probably picked up from my above messages, i do know a little hebrew here and there. (ish) is indeed the common word for "man" and (ishah) is indeed the common word for "woman." i'm actually unaware of any "context" that implies they are neccessarily husband and wife, unless possesives are used. this is also a reason that you shouldn't try to "retranslate" stuff with a concordance. concordances catalog root words, and contain no grammar, and are actually not very useful for translating. in any case, genesis 2 refers to adam and chavah, in verse 25 as:
quote: the implication of "his woman" is "wife" and so it's perfectly acceptable to translate ishah as "wife" in this instance if you're using an idiomatic translation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa. see Message 31 Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve. see Message 22 Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story. no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge). rather, i think it's important to not that genesis 2 seems to be the cultural explanation of marriage itself, not just the bit read at weddings. see Message 18 I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar). women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him. Edited by arachnophilia, : evil broken tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Are you nudging me?
I think you already know my thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 concerning their timeline. Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible.
quote:I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach , but that's the impression I get. I think it is a birds-and-the-bees type of story. I agree that the story says man cleaves to woman because they are similar (unlike the other animals of creation), but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down.
quote:I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible. yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood.
I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach, but that's the impression I get you mean you get the impression it's an idiom for sex? interesting, i hadn't thought of that. the word in question, ‘ (dabaq) literally means "adhere" or "attach." the noun form means "glue," or (colloquially) "leech" (person, i think, not the animal). i imagine "attach" could have sexual implications, such as the modern english "hook up." but i think there is just as good argument for marriage. one literal meaning -- and a pun.
but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down. yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice.
I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode lol did you now? Edited by arachnophilia, : typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate. quote:I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be. ABEI think we've gone a little past what my point was (which I apparently botched) when I first answered mjfloresta's Message 8 concerning his comment. mjfloresta writes: In Genesis, at creation specifically, when God established marriage and all of the accompanying relations as between one man and one woman...All of the Levitical laws pertaining to sexual relations fall under the umbrella of this "creation ordinance of marriage", including the prohibition of homosexuality... There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations. Since Genesis 1 is a priestly writing, I doubt that the A&E story carried much weight when the laws were established for the temple or otherwise. If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28. Edited by purpledawn, : Added Comments "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.... There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations. Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say, too. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate. hmm, yes, that might makes sense -- however. there is nothing in the story that even hints at procreation until this verse. there's a reference to "be fruitful and multiply" in chapter 1 -- but that doesn't happen in chapter 2 (an independent story anyways). it still might be a valid reading, as long as you're aware that it says "man is lonely, therefor we screw." actually, that might even be kinda funny...
I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be. oh, no, of course. clearly, the patriarchs married multiply wives, so their idea of marriage was a little more flexible than modern christianity's.
There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations. yes, this is true.
If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28. well, that's only because it takes commandments given directly by god, and probably only ones that are still valid. "don't touch my tree" doesn't really make much sense anymore, and i don't think god gives any other commandment in gen 2. but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Nah, 'one flesh' is just a euphemism for 'the beast with two backs':-p
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yes, that's what pd was pointing out. i see how it could work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality. Seems to me that a compelling argument could be made that the command to "be fruitful" is in fact a directive to be homosexual. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, i doubt "fruit" was used in that particular way...
but this book is just full of double entendres, aint it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So you're saying that if the laws in the OT don't demonstrate love of God or Love of neighbors, then it need not be followed. Loving homosexual relationships don't interfere with loving God or loving your neighbor any more than a heterosexual relationship. So then why is that a law that is still pinpointed? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024